On Monday, October 13, 2025, The Gazelle News reported that Miami-Dade County’s Eleventh Judicial Circuit is facing a severe credibility crisis due to alleged due process violations and judicial misconduct, sparking concerns among legal analysts. The controversy centers around Judge Mavel Ruiz and her handling of Case No. 2021-009833-CA-01, Shitta-Bey et al. v. Joseph Durandis et al., initially a routine civil motion to vacate a void judgment.
Legal observers are characterizing the situation as a significant breakdown of courtroom integrity in Florida. The core issue revolves around Judge Ruiz’s decision to enter a Final Summary Judgment without providing or filing any notice of a dispositive hearing, a direct violation of Florida’s due-process requirements. Legal precedent dictates that such a judgment is void ab initio, meaning it is legally null from its inception.
Florida Rule 1.540(b)(4) mandates that vacating a void judgment is a ministerial duty, requiring no discretion. Despite this, months have passed since the plaintiffs filed their motion, and no corrective order has been issued. One Miami procedural analyst described the situation as a “cautionary tale of judicial paralysis and misplaced power,” rather than a simple, five-minute correction.
Further complicating the matter, analysts have noted that Judge Ruiz was not assigned to the case through the standard blind draw process outlined in Rule 2.215(b)(4). Instead, she appeared on the case after it had been managed by another judge for nearly three years. Shortly after her arrival, Judge Ruiz withdrew the case from the trial track and issued the contested void summary judgment, creating what analysts are calling a “procedural black hole.” A retired judicial administrator emphasized the importance of random assignment in preventing midstream judge swaps that could alter outcomes, warning that bypassing this system undermines public trust.
Instead of vacating the defective judgment, Judge Ruiz reportedly instructed the plaintiffs to “confer and prepare an agreed order” with the defendants, who are the beneficiaries of the contested ruling and have not filed any response opposing the motion. Legal experts have criticized this directive as procedurally indefensible and legally incoherent, asserting that jurisdiction cannot be established through consent or compromise.
The situation has led observers to describe the case as the creation of a “legal zombie” – a judgment that should be dead but continues to linger on the docket. One procedural expert stated that Judge Ruiz has made it appear alive despite having no legal basis, warning that such precedents could infect the entire judicial ecosystem.
Despite the pending motion to vacate, Judge Ruiz has approved a hearing requested by defense counsel for December 15, 2025, to discuss attorney’s fees, effectively merging the issue of fees with the unresolved jurisdictional defect. An appellate specialist explained that authorizing new proceedings while the foundation of the case is void gives the appearance of acting without lawful authority, emphasizing that a court loses jurisdiction, every subsequent act is void.
A formal motion to disqualify Judge Ruiz alleges bias and improper influence, describing a courtroom where impartiality has been compromised. Judge Ruiz denied the motion, a move analysts have described as technically permissible but politically disastrous. A legal-ethics consultant warned that even the perception of bias erodes faith in justice, and refusing to step aside deepens the crisis when the issue is jurisdiction itself.
Reactions from the legal community have been highly critical, with one national analyst stating that such judicial defiance is not seen even in third-world countries. Experts warn that the case symbolizes a broader collapse of judicial accountability, with a constitutional law professor noting that justice becomes arbitrary when judges treat mandatory duties as optional.
The controversy has attracted national and international documentary producers who are investigating judicial misconduct, with early footage depicting a justice system struggling with self-accountability.
Analysts warn that the fallout could damage Florida’s reputation for decades, signaling to litigants and investors that due process is optional.
Source: The Gazelle News
